(The appeal is an appeal to the District Court, so it will likely be resolved fairly quickly.) [UPDATE 6/20/23: The District Court affirmed the disclosure order; the guarantors' names will be released 6/22, at least unless they "seek to withdraw from" being guarantors.]
Just published as part of the symposium on Media and Society After Technological Disruption, edited by Profs. Justin "Gus" Hurwitz & Kyle Langvardt.
Criticizing the law by calling for people to break it is an American tradition.
The question: Does the First Amendment allow content-based but viewpoint-neutral restrictions on which trademarks may be registered—here, a restriction on marks that "[c]onsist[] of or comprise[] a name ... identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent"?
Plus: Librarians take on Arkansas book restrictions, another migrant stunt may have originated in Florida, and more...
Online platforms should resist binding us all to the rules of censorship-happy jurisdictions.
Just published as part of the symposium on Media and Society After Technological Disruption, edited by Profs. Justin "Gus" Hurwitz & Kyle Langvardt.
Properly crafted restrictions on displays of pornographic material where minors can see it are constitutional; but the court rules, among other things, that this restriction (1) discriminatorily targets drag shows, (2) lacks an exemption for minors escorted by parents, (3) applies even to venues that try to card attendees but are duped by a fake ID.
"We find that while removing this content does curb some misinformation, it could also have the unintended effect of curtailing political speech."
Just published as part of the symposium on Media and Society After Technological Disruption, edited by Profs. Justin "Gus" Hurwitz & Kyle Langvardt.
The symposium was edited by Prof. Justin "Gus Hurwitz" & Prof. Kyle Langvardt, and will be published later this year as a book by Cambridge University Press.
The court had allowed her to litigate pseudonymously at earlier stages in the process, but just held that this doesn’t extend to trial.
The show's final season boldly declared that success requires putting yourself first and accepting the trade-offs.
The case had involved a doctor who had sued over his license being restricted based on allegations of mental incompetency.
The Missouri senator is once again pursuing misguided tech regulation.
Plus: Debt ceiling deal passes House, Congress wants to childproof the internet, lactation consultant licensing law is unconstitutional, and more...
The CEO of Open To Debate wants us to disagree more productively—especially when it comes to presidential debates.
How online “child protection” measures could make child and adult internet users more vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, and snoops.
Whether the putative target is the "biomedical security state," wokeness, "Big Tech censors," or Chinese Communists, the presidential candidate’s grandstanding poses a clear threat to individual rights.
Laws against displaying Nazi-esque iconography are well-intended, but they pose a threat to free speech and the principles of a free society.
Freedom's Dominion argues Southern history was animated by "racialized radical anti-statism." The case is lacking.
Expect the very foundations of the internet to come under attack from politicians and the mainstream media.
The New York Times asked that their names, and information related to the bail hearing, be released.
"[W]e find no error by the trial court in finding that Father had mentally abused N. The circuit court concluded that N. was 'frightened,' 'scared,' and 'fearful' of his Father's anger and his Father's refusal to accept his sexual orientation."
A new report calls for policy makers to take action when none is required.
A case stemming from a "Holocaust revisionist's" expulsion from a conference on "Mennonites and the Holocaust."
violates the First Amendment, holds the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
The student had “posted a screenshot of a friend with a cosmetic mud mask on her face with the caption ‘when he says he’s only into black girls’ on her Instagram account.”
Plus: A new lawsuit in Montana over the state's TikTok ban, the economic realities of online content creation, the rights of private companies, and more...
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks